View Full Version : Where is the FAF on the GPS 23 approach to KUCP?
Richard Kaplan
April 10th 04, 03:24 PM
I cannot find a charted final approach fix on the GPS 23 approach to KUCP
(New Castle, PA):
http://download.aopa.org/iap/20040219/NE4/ucp_ndb_or_gps_rwy_23.pdf
The Garmin 530 and UPSAT GX50 both consider Bryne intersection to be the
FAF, but there is no Maltese cross.
Any ideas? Can an approach exist without a charted FAF? Is there an
alternate nomenclature to replace the Maltese cross?
Jeppesen plates show the same situation.
--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII
www.flyimc.com
Richard Kaplan wrote:
> I cannot find a charted final approach fix on the GPS 23 approach to KUCP
> (New Castle, PA):
>
> http://download.aopa.org/iap/20040219/NE4/ucp_ndb_or_gps_rwy_23.pdf
>
> The Garmin 530 and UPSAT GX50 both consider Bryne intersection to be the
> FAF, but there is no Maltese cross.
>
> Any ideas? Can an approach exist without a charted FAF? Is there an
> alternate nomenclature to replace the Maltese cross?
>
> Jeppesen plates show the same situation.
Richard,
You'are a CFI-I and you don't know the answer to that question? First, it's
an overlay IAP, so it's really an NDB approach with GPS overlay authorization
added. Second, the primary approach--the NDB--is what is known in TERPs as
an "On Airport, NO-FAF NDB instrument approach procedure." Third, because
On-Aiport VOR and NDB IAPs, by definition, have no FAF, the industry added a
Sensor "FAF" to these on-airport IAPs, so that the GPS avionics would have a
psuedo-FAF to trigger the approach mode. Jeppesen issued a briefing bulletin
on all this several years ago, and it is mention, albiet briefly, in the AIM.
In reality, with a on-airport, No-FAF VOR or NDB IAP, you are in the final
segment as soon as you complete the procedure turn.
Brad Z
April 10th 04, 04:33 PM
I'll give Richard the benefit of the doubt that the inclusion of the Bryne
intersection makes this approach just a bit different from your typical
on-airport "No FAF" out-n-back approach. The Bryne intersection only serves
as a step-down when using the Pittsburgh altimeter setting. While it serves
to aid in situational awareness when flying the approach without GPS, it
does not serve as a FAF. The fact that there is no timing information from
FAF to MAP is another clue.
Brad Z
"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> I cannot find a charted final approach fix on the GPS 23 approach to KUCP
> (New Castle, PA):
>
> http://download.aopa.org/iap/20040219/NE4/ucp_ndb_or_gps_rwy_23.pdf
>
> The Garmin 530 and UPSAT GX50 both consider Bryne intersection to be the
> FAF, but there is no Maltese cross.
>
> Any ideas? Can an approach exist without a charted FAF? Is there an
> alternate nomenclature to replace the Maltese cross?
>
> Jeppesen plates show the same situation.
>
> --------------------
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com
>
>
PaulaJay1
April 10th 04, 04:41 PM
In article >, "Richard
Kaplan" > writes:
>The Garmin 530 and UPSAT GX50 both consider Bryne intersection to be the
>FAF, but there is no Maltese cross.
>
>Any ideas? Can an approach exist without a charted FAF? Is there an
>alternate nomenclature to replace the Maltese cross?
>
My refference is Trevor Thom's Instrument Flying.
He says:
"The FAF is marked on IAP charts with a maltese cross or a lighting bolt
symbol. Where no final approach fix is shown, final descent should not be
commenced until the airplane is established within +or- 5 deg of the final
approach course."
This is confusing to me as it says it is marked and then says what to do when
it isn't. If I were flying it, I would assume Bryne (though assumptions on
fimal are dangerous). Another interesting point, for flying the NDB, it
doesn't say VOR required.
Chuck
Brad Z
April 10th 04, 05:01 PM
"PaulaJay1" > wrote in message
...
> Another interesting point, for flying the NDB, it doesn't say VOR
required.
>
Bryne is not required to be identified unless you are using the Pittsburgh
altimeter setting and need to use it as a stepdown fix. Besides, I've never
seen a "VOR required" note on an approach. Anyone else?
Brad Z
April 10th 04, 05:13 PM
Semi-related question: Can vectors be issued for this type of approach? In
addition to the verbiage of "vectors for the approach" it was mentioned that
ATC is required to specify distance from the FAF. Can ATC just provide a
vector to intercept the approach course and provide distance to the missed
approach point / Airport / navaid? I've only flown one or two of these as
full practice approaches, so I'm curious if there was anything different
about them.
Brad
> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Richard Kaplan wrote:
>
> > I cannot find a charted final approach fix on the GPS 23 approach to
KUCP
> > (New Castle, PA):
> >
> > http://download.aopa.org/iap/20040219/NE4/ucp_ndb_or_gps_rwy_23.pdf
> >
> > The Garmin 530 and UPSAT GX50 both consider Bryne intersection to be the
> > FAF, but there is no Maltese cross.
> >
> > Any ideas? Can an approach exist without a charted FAF? Is there an
> > alternate nomenclature to replace the Maltese cross?
> >
> > Jeppesen plates show the same situation.
>
> Richard,
>
> You'are a CFI-I and you don't know the answer to that question? First,
it's
> an overlay IAP, so it's really an NDB approach with GPS overlay
authorization
> added. Second, the primary approach--the NDB--is what is known in TERPs
as
> an "On Airport, NO-FAF NDB instrument approach procedure." Third, because
> On-Aiport VOR and NDB IAPs, by definition, have no FAF, the industry added
a
> Sensor "FAF" to these on-airport IAPs, so that the GPS avionics would have
a
> psuedo-FAF to trigger the approach mode. Jeppesen issued a briefing
bulletin
> on all this several years ago, and it is mention, albiet briefly, in the
AIM.
>
> In reality, with a on-airport, No-FAF VOR or NDB IAP, you are in the final
> segment as soon as you complete the procedure turn.
>
Brad Z wrote:
> Semi-related question: Can vectors be issued for this type of approach? In
> addition to the verbiage of "vectors for the approach" it was mentioned that
> ATC is required to specify distance from the FAF. Can ATC just provide a
> vector to intercept the approach course and provide distance to the missed
> approach point / Airport / navaid? I've only flown one or two of these as
> full practice approaches, so I'm curious if there was anything different
Well, you have built-in "DME" if you're using GPS to fly this type of approach,
so you would know when you're within 10 miles. Bigger question is whether the
TAC facility would have this type of IAP video mapped for vectors.
Steven P. McNicoll
April 10th 04, 05:27 PM
"Brad Z" > wrote in message
news:83Vdc.3108$xn4.16249@attbi_s51...
>
> Semi-related question: Can vectors be issued for this type
> of approach?
>
Yes.
>
> In addition to the verbiage of "vectors for the approach" it was
> mentioned that ATC is required to specify distance from the FAF.
> Can ATC just provide a vector to intercept the approach course
> and provide distance to the missed approach point / Airport / navaid? >
I've only flown one or two of these as full practice approaches, so
> I'm curious if there was anything different about them.
>
ATC must issue position information relative to a fix on the final approach
course. If none is portrayed on the radar display, or if none is prescribed
in the procedure, position information is issued relative to the
navigational aid which provides final approach course guidance or relative
to the airport.
Brad Z wrote:
> I'll give Richard the benefit of the doubt that the inclusion of the Bryne
> intersection makes this approach just a bit different from your typical
> on-airport "No FAF" out-n-back approach. The Bryne intersection only serves
> as a step-down when using the Pittsburgh altimeter setting. While it serves
> to aid in situational awareness when flying the approach without GPS, it
> does not serve as a FAF. The fact that there is no timing information from
> FAF to MAP is another clue.
*Every* on-airport, no-FAF NRB orVOR IAP approved for GPS overlay has a sensor
FAF. It is not unique to this location. What is different about this location
is that BRYNE is a stepdown fix for optional lower minimums, but nonetheless it
becomes the sensor FAF when it's tagged as "FAF" in the database. And, this
isn't the only on-airport, no-FAF IAP with an optional stepdown fix. Those have
been around for years, long before GPS.
Brad Z wrote:
> I'll give Richard the benefit of the doubt that the inclusion of the Bryne
> intersection makes this approach just a bit different from your typical
> on-airport "No FAF" out-n-back approach. The Bryne intersection only serves
> as a step-down when using the Pittsburgh altimeter setting. While it serves
> to aid in situational awareness when flying the approach without GPS, it
> does not serve as a FAF. The fact that there is no timing information from
> FAF to MAP is another clue.
*Every* on-airport, no-FAF NRB orVOR IAP approved for GPS overlay has a sensor
FAF. It is not unique to this location. What is different about this location
is that BRYNE is a stepdown fix for optional lower minimums, but nonetheless it
becomes the sensor FAF when it's tagged as "FAF" in the database. And, this
isn't the only on-airport, no-FAF IAP with an optional stepdown fix. Those have
been around for years, long before GPS.
Brad Z wrote:
> I'll give Richard the benefit of the doubt that the inclusion of the Bryne
> intersection makes this approach just a bit different from your typical
> on-airport "No FAF" out-n-back approach. The Bryne intersection only serves
> as a step-down when using the Pittsburgh altimeter setting. While it serves
> to aid in situational awareness when flying the approach without GPS, it
> does not serve as a FAF. The fact that there is no timing information from
> FAF to MAP is another clue.
*Every* on-airport, no-FAF NRB orVOR IAP approved for GPS overlay has a sensor
FAF. It is not unique to this location. What is different about this location
is that BRYNE is a stepdown fix for optional lower minimums, but nonetheless it
becomes the sensor FAF when it's tagged as "FAF" in the database. And, this
isn't the only on-airport, no-FAF IAP with an optional stepdown fix. Those have
been around for years, long before GPS.
Brad Z wrote:
> I'll give Richard the benefit of the doubt that the inclusion of the Bryne
> intersection makes this approach just a bit different from your typical
> on-airport "No FAF" out-n-back approach. The Bryne intersection only serves
> as a step-down when using the Pittsburgh altimeter setting. While it serves
> to aid in situational awareness when flying the approach without GPS, it
> does not serve as a FAF. The fact that there is no timing information from
> FAF to MAP is another clue.
*Every* on-airport, no-FAF NRB orVOR IAP approved for GPS overlay has a sensor
FAF. It is not unique to this location. What is different about this location
is that BRYNE is a stepdown fix for optional lower minimums, but nonetheless it
becomes the sensor FAF when it's tagged as "FAF" in the database. And, this
isn't the only on-airport, no-FAF IAP with an optional stepdown fix. Those have
been around for years, long before GPS.
Steven P. McNicoll
April 10th 04, 05:34 PM
"Brad Z" > wrote in message
news:qTUdc.3086$_K3.24982@attbi_s53...
>
> Bryne is not required to be identified unless you are using the
> Pittsburgh altimeter setting and need to use it as a stepdown fix.
> Besides, I've never seen a "VOR required" note on an approach.
> Anyone else?
>
The note "VOR required" is not used because all IFR aircraft are assumed to
have at least one VOR receiver.
PaulaJay1 wrote:
>
> My refference is Trevor Thom's Instrument Flying.
>
> He says:
>
> "The FAF is marked on IAP charts with a maltese cross or a lighting bolt
> symbol. Where no final approach fix is shown, final descent should not be
> commenced until the airplane is established within +or- 5 deg of the final
> approach course."
His advice is good, but technically would apply only to ICAO PANS-OPs countries
where they define on course with plus-or-minus limits. In a strict sense the FAA
refuses to legally define on-course as anything other than on-course, the PTS
standards notwithstanding.
>
>
> This is confusing to me as it says it is marked and then says what to do when
> it isn't. If I were flying it, I would assume Bryne (though assumptions on
> fimal are dangerous). Another interesting point, for flying the NDB, it
> doesn't say VOR required.
>
No, because the VOR fix is optional. If you can use it, you get lower minimums.
And, it is policy to never state "VOR Required" because every IFR airplane is
presumed to have at least one VOR receiver.
Brad Z wrote:
> "PaulaJay1" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Another interesting point, for flying the NDB, it doesn't say VOR
> required.
> >
>
> Bryne is not required to be identified unless you are using the Pittsburgh
> altimeter setting and need to use it as a stepdown fix. Besides, I've never
> seen a "VOR required" note on an approach. Anyone else?
The PIT altimeter is a different issue. The 1840 becomes 1920 when using PIT.
The same 80-foot addivitve should have been applied to the stepdown minimums;
i.e. 1740 would become 1820 with BRYNE and using PIT altimeter.
They screwed up the remote altimeter charting.
J Haggerty
April 10th 04, 06:40 PM
wrote:
>
> Richard Kaplan wrote:
>
>
>>I cannot find a charted final approach fix on the GPS 23 approach to KUCP
>>(New Castle, PA):
>>
>>http://download.aopa.org/iap/20040219/NE4/ucp_ndb_or_gps_rwy_23.pdf
>>
>>The Garmin 530 and UPSAT GX50 both consider Bryne intersection to be the
>>FAF, but there is no Maltese cross.
>>
>>Any ideas? Can an approach exist without a charted FAF? Is there an
>>alternate nomenclature to replace the Maltese cross?
>>
>>Jeppesen plates show the same situation.
>
>
> Richard,
>
> You'are a CFI-I and you don't know the answer to that question? First, it's
> an overlay IAP, so it's really an NDB approach with GPS overlay authorization
> added. Second, the primary approach--the NDB--is what is known in TERPs as
> an "On Airport, NO-FAF NDB instrument approach procedure." Third, because
> On-Aiport VOR and NDB IAPs, by definition, have no FAF, the industry added a
> Sensor "FAF" to these on-airport IAPs, so that the GPS avionics would have a
> psuedo-FAF to trigger the approach mode. Jeppesen issued a briefing bulletin
> on all this several years ago, and it is mention, albiet briefly, in the AIM.
>
> In reality, with a on-airport, No-FAF VOR or NDB IAP, you are in the final
> segment as soon as you complete the procedure turn.
>
You're partly right, this is a GPS overlay of an existing NDB N0-FAF
procedure, but there is no pseudo-FAF on the procedure. You're probably
thinking about the Computer Navigation Fixes (CNF) added to several
overlays, but BRYNE INT is a stepdown fix that is an integral part of
the NDB procedure, and since it's an existing intersection, GPS can also
use it even though there is no CNF. This procedure does not have a FAF.
The MDA is 1840 for NDB only, but if you are using the NDB and can
pick up the VOR intersection, or are using GPS you can go down to 1740
at BRYNE INT (unless you're using the Pittsburgh altimeter setting).
The procedure designer could have created a FAF on the procedure, but
that would have created an extra requirement for whatever equipment was
used to create the FAF (DME, crossing radial, bearing, etc). If they had
done that, then the failure of that other equipment, or lack of ability
to receive the equipment on the aircraft would have rendered the
procedure unusable.
By using the SDF instead of a FAF, an aircraft still has the ability to
fly the procedure without additional equipment.
JPH
J Haggerty
April 10th 04, 06:53 PM
Just curious, how would vectors to the NDB final fit in with the
requirements to vector outside the approach gate if no approach gate
exists? (There is no FAF)
FAAH 7110.65 Section 9. Radar Arrivals
5-9-1. VECTORS TO FINAL APPROACH COURSE
Except as provided in para 7-4-2, Vectors for Visual Approach, vector
arriving aircraft to intercept the final approach course:
a. At least 2 miles outside the approach gate unless one of the
following exists:
1. When the reported ceiling is at least 500 feet above the MVA/MIA and
the visibility is at least 3 miles (report may be a PIREP if no weather
is reported for the airport), aircraft may be vectored to intercept the
final approach course closer than 2 miles outside the approach gate but
no closer than the approach gate.
2. If specifically requested by the pilot, aircraft may be vectored to
intercept the final approach course inside the approach gate but no
closer than the final approach fix.
EXCEPTION. Conditions 1 and 2 above do not apply to RNAV aircraft being
vectored for a GPS or RNAV approach.
AIM Pilot/Controller Glossary
APPROACH GATE- An imaginary point used within ATC as a basis for
vectoring aircraft to the final approach course. The gate will be
established along the final approach course 1 mile from the final
approach fix on the side away from the airport and will be no closer
than 5 miles from the landing threshold.
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Brad Z" > wrote in message
> news:83Vdc.3108$xn4.16249@attbi_s51...
>
>>Semi-related question: Can vectors be issued for this type
>>of approach?
>>
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
>>In addition to the verbiage of "vectors for the approach" it was
>>mentioned that ATC is required to specify distance from the FAF.
>>Can ATC just provide a vector to intercept the approach course
>>and provide distance to the missed approach point / Airport / navaid? >
>
> I've only flown one or two of these as full practice approaches, so
>
>>I'm curious if there was anything different about them.
>>
>
>
> ATC must issue position information relative to a fix on the final approach
> course. If none is portrayed on the radar display, or if none is prescribed
> in the procedure, position information is issued relative to the
> navigational aid which provides final approach course guidance or relative
> to the airport.
>
>
Steven P. McNicoll
April 10th 04, 07:07 PM
"J Haggerty" > wrote in message
news:GwWdc.10755$wb4.9646@okepread02...
>
> Just curious, how would vectors to the NDB final fit in with the
> requirements to vector outside the approach gate if no approach gate
> exists? (There is no FAF)
>
Interesting. It appears the definition of Approach Gate was altered at some
point. As I recall, it did not formerly refer specifically to the FAF, but
to the outer marker or the point used in lieu of the outer marker.
J Haggerty wrote:
> Just curious, how would vectors to the NDB final fit in with the
> requirements to vector outside the approach gate if no approach gate
> exists? (There is no FAF)
If there is no FAF what would preclude them from video mapping the approach gate
5 miles from the threshold?
J Haggerty wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > Richard Kaplan wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I cannot find a charted final approach fix on the GPS 23 approach to KUCP
> >>(New Castle, PA):
> >>
> >>http://download.aopa.org/iap/20040219/NE4/ucp_ndb_or_gps_rwy_23.pdf
> >>
> >>The Garmin 530 and UPSAT GX50 both consider Bryne intersection to be the
> >>FAF, but there is no Maltese cross.
> >>
> >>Any ideas? Can an approach exist without a charted FAF? Is there an
> >>alternate nomenclature to replace the Maltese cross?
> >>
> >>Jeppesen plates show the same situation.
> >
> >
> > Richard,
> >
> > You'are a CFI-I and you don't know the answer to that question? First, it's
> > an overlay IAP, so it's really an NDB approach with GPS overlay authorization
> > added. Second, the primary approach--the NDB--is what is known in TERPs as
> > an "On Airport, NO-FAF NDB instrument approach procedure." Third, because
> > On-Aiport VOR and NDB IAPs, by definition, have no FAF, the industry added a
> > Sensor "FAF" to these on-airport IAPs, so that the GPS avionics would have a
> > psuedo-FAF to trigger the approach mode. Jeppesen issued a briefing bulletin
> > on all this several years ago, and it is mention, albiet briefly, in the AIM.
> >
> > In reality, with a on-airport, No-FAF VOR or NDB IAP, you are in the final
> > segment as soon as you complete the procedure turn.
> >
>
> You're partly right, this is a GPS overlay of an existing NDB N0-FAF
> procedure, but there is no pseudo-FAF on the procedure.
Normally the pseudo-FAF would be located 4 miles prior to the NDB. But, since this
on-airport, No-FAF NDB has a stepdown fix 3.5 miles from the runway Jeppesen coded
the CNF at that point, and called it the "FAF" so for GPS purposes it is the sensor
fix.
Bob Gardner
April 10th 04, 09:38 PM
Gotta remember that Thom's frame of reference is Europe, specifically
England. Although he flies/flew into US airspace, there is always the law of
primacy to consider....what did he learn first, our way or their way?
Bob Gardner
"PaulaJay1" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Richard
> Kaplan" > writes:
>
> >The Garmin 530 and UPSAT GX50 both consider Bryne intersection to be the
> >FAF, but there is no Maltese cross.
> >
> >Any ideas? Can an approach exist without a charted FAF? Is there an
> >alternate nomenclature to replace the Maltese cross?
> >
>
> My refference is Trevor Thom's Instrument Flying.
>
>
> He says:
>
> "The FAF is marked on IAP charts with a maltese cross or a lighting bolt
> symbol. Where no final approach fix is shown, final descent should not be
> commenced until the airplane is established within +or- 5 deg of the final
> approach course."
>
> This is confusing to me as it says it is marked and then says what to do
when
> it isn't. If I were flying it, I would assume Bryne (though assumptions
on
> fimal are dangerous). Another interesting point, for flying the NDB, it
> doesn't say VOR required.
>
> Chuck
>
>
J Haggerty
April 11th 04, 01:24 AM
wrote:
> If there is no FAF what would preclude them from video mapping the approach gate
> 5 miles from the threshold?
>
The requirement for the approach gate is that it has to be 1 mile from
the FAF "and" at least 5 miles from the threshold. Without a FAF, there
can be no approach gate.
J Haggerty wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > If there is no FAF what would preclude them from video mapping the approach gate
> > 5 miles from the threshold?
> >
> The requirement for the approach gate is that it has to be 1 mile from
> the FAF "and" at least 5 miles from the threshold. Without a FAF, there
> can be no approach gate.
Then that means ATC can never vector to one of these on-airport approaches?
Steven P. McNicoll
April 11th 04, 04:53 AM
"KP" > wrote in message ...
>
> Can't speak for centers but even absent the requirement to have a
> FAF (real or pseudo) to establish an approach gate, the probability
> of a terminal facility cluttering up it's radar display with the FACs
> for on-airport non-precision NDB, GPS, or even VOR approaches
> is (or used to be) pretty slim.
>
So just put them on another video map and select it as needed.
J Haggerty
April 11th 04, 06:17 PM
wrote:
>>The requirement for the approach gate is that it has to be 1 mile from
>>the FAF "and" at least 5 miles from the threshold. Without a FAF, there
>>can be no approach gate.
>
>
> Then that means ATC can never vector to one of these on-airport approaches?
>
Keep in mind that there are 2 types of "on-airport" approaches; ones
with FAF's, and those without FAF's. Those with FAFs have both an
initial segment and an intermediate segment. Radar vectors to a
procedure with a FAF will set you up onto either the initial or
intermediate segment of the procedure, prior to the FAF. Trying to
vector an aircraft to final for a no-FAF procedure would be akin to
vectoring an aircraft to intercept inside the FAF for a procedure that
has a FAF.
FAAH 7110.65 (controllers bible) states what is needed for controllers
to vector an aircraft to the final approach course. As far as I can tell
from reading the applicable paragraphs in 7110.65, it appears there is
no authorization for controllers to vector an aircraft to intercept
final for a no-FAF procedure, based on the requirement to intercept
prior to the FAF, and a no-FAF procedure does not have a FAF. You can
review this chapter at the following website;
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp5/atc0509.html
Also, the TERPS manual states the requirements for initial segments of a
procedure. In most cases, it states that radar vectors can be
substituted for the initial approach segment (see para 711 and para
230), but in the paragraph that governs on-airport NDB no-FAF procedures
(para 611), it does not give this option, and limits the initial segment
to overheading the navigation facility on a procedure turn. You can
review the TERPS manual at;
http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/Directives_files/Order%208260.3_1-18.pdf
Based on the rules and regulations of those 2 manuals, I would say that
you're safe in saying that ATC can not normally vector to an on-airport
no-FAF NDB final. (I try to never say never, emergencies trump all regs!)
JPH
Bill Zaleski
April 11th 04, 07:26 PM
We customarily get vectors to final all the time on the NDB 22 SCH.
It has no FAF, and is a terminal approach.
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:17:40 -0500, J Haggerty
> wrote:
wrote:
>
>>>The requirement for the approach gate is that it has to be 1 mile from
>>>the FAF "and" at least 5 miles from the threshold. Without a FAF, there
>>>can be no approach gate.
>>
>>
>> Then that means ATC can never vector to one of these on-airport approaches?
>>
>
>Keep in mind that there are 2 types of "on-airport" approaches; ones
>with FAF's, and those without FAF's. Those with FAFs have both an
>initial segment and an intermediate segment. Radar vectors to a
>procedure with a FAF will set you up onto either the initial or
>intermediate segment of the procedure, prior to the FAF. Trying to
>vector an aircraft to final for a no-FAF procedure would be akin to
>vectoring an aircraft to intercept inside the FAF for a procedure that
>has a FAF.
>
>FAAH 7110.65 (controllers bible) states what is needed for controllers
>to vector an aircraft to the final approach course. As far as I can tell
>from reading the applicable paragraphs in 7110.65, it appears there is
>no authorization for controllers to vector an aircraft to intercept
>final for a no-FAF procedure, based on the requirement to intercept
>prior to the FAF, and a no-FAF procedure does not have a FAF. You can
>review this chapter at the following website;
>http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp5/atc0509.html
>
>Also, the TERPS manual states the requirements for initial segments of a
>procedure. In most cases, it states that radar vectors can be
>substituted for the initial approach segment (see para 711 and para
>230), but in the paragraph that governs on-airport NDB no-FAF procedures
>(para 611), it does not give this option, and limits the initial segment
>to overheading the navigation facility on a procedure turn. You can
>review the TERPS manual at;
>http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/Directives_files/Order%208260.3_1-18.pdf
>
>Based on the rules and regulations of those 2 manuals, I would say that
>you're safe in saying that ATC can not normally vector to an on-airport
>no-FAF NDB final. (I try to never say never, emergencies trump all regs!)
>
>JPH
Richard Kaplan
April 11th 04, 09:32 PM
> wrote in message ...>
> On-Aiport VOR and NDB IAPs, by definition, have no FAF, the industry added
a
> Sensor "FAF" to these on-airport IAPs, so that the GPS avionics would have
a
> psuedo-FAF to trigger the approach mode. Jeppesen issued a briefing
bulletin
> on all this several years ago, and it is mention, albiet briefly, in the
AIM.
Thanks... I agree with all that... what is particularly interesting is how
this sort of approach is handled differently in different GPS databases,
with the KLN94 for example requiring use of OBS mode to prevent sequencing
through the procedure turn early and with the Garmin 430/530 including a
procedure turn before the sensor FAF.
--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII
www.flyimc.com
Richard Kaplan
April 11th 04, 09:46 PM
"Brad Z" > wrote in message
news:HtUdc.5713$rg5.29836@attbi_s52...
> I'll give Richard the benefit of the doubt that the inclusion of the Bryne
> intersection makes this approach just a bit different from your typical
> on-airport "No FAF" out-n-back approach. The Bryne intersection only
serves
That is correct... particularly least from the operational perspective of
flying the approach on various GPS units. Usually it is very clear when a
sensor FAF exists but in this case since Bryne is a published intersection
it is not immediately obvious that the FAF in the GPS database is not a
published FAF on the approach chart. On the KLN94 it becomes necessary to
engage OBS mode during the procedure turn to avoid prematurely sequencing
through Bryne.
The above seems like a small subtlety but it could easily be a source of
confusion flying the approach for real with a KLN94, whereas it is much more
clear using the Garmin 530. I will readily state that I have flown
uncountable numbers of GPS approaches both in my simulator and in airplanes
using just about all IFR GPS units out there, yet I definitely learned
something from flying this approach for the first time in the simulator and
it will change my approach to briefing GPS approaches in the future -- there
is always something new to learn. I have shown it to other pilots who
regularly fly GPS approaches as well and they agreed that the use of Bryne
as the pseudo-FAF creates a bit of a new "twist" to the variations of GPS
approaches out there.
--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII
www.flyimc.com
J Haggerty
April 11th 04, 10:13 PM
Bill Zaleski wrote:
> We customarily get vectors to final all the time on the NDB 22 SCH.
> It has no FAF, and is a terminal approach.
I'm curious, what do they say in the clearance? Do they give a position
in relation to the NDB and an altitude to maintain until intercepting
the final segment?
Based on their own regulation, I don't see how they can legally do that.
Based on the procedure design, it's not authorized.
JPH
Steven P. McNicoll
April 11th 04, 11:17 PM
"KP" > wrote in message
...
>
> Didn't say it *couldn't* be done. Said it wasn't likely to be done.
>
If the radar coverage is available there's no reason not to have the
approach on a video map.
>
> How many maps are available at your current facility?
>
Up to ten possible, we use six. The maps are digital now, no more glass
slides.
>
> Do any of them show
> all the non-precision FACs at low traffic satellite airports?
>
All are mapped where radar coverage allows vectors.
Bill Zaleski
April 11th 04, 11:41 PM
Normal verbage: 6 miles from Hunter, trun left heading xxx maintain
xx until established, cleared..
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:13:19 -0500, J Haggerty
> wrote:
>Bill Zaleski wrote:
>> We customarily get vectors to final all the time on the NDB 22 SCH.
>> It has no FAF, and is a terminal approach.
>
>I'm curious, what do they say in the clearance? Do they give a position
>in relation to the NDB and an altitude to maintain until intercepting
>the final segment?
>Based on their own regulation, I don't see how they can legally do that.
>Based on the procedure design, it's not authorized.
>
>JPH
J Haggerty
April 12th 04, 03:35 AM
What altitude do they assign? Is it 2400? Or higher?
Bill Zaleski wrote:
> Normal verbage: 6 miles from Hunter, trun left heading xxx maintain
> xx until established, cleared..
>
>
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:13:19 -0500, J Haggerty
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Bill Zaleski wrote:
>>
>>>We customarily get vectors to final all the time on the NDB 22 SCH.
>>>It has no FAF, and is a terminal approach.
>>
>>I'm curious, what do they say in the clearance? Do they give a position
>>in relation to the NDB and an altitude to maintain until intercepting
>>the final segment?
>>Based on their own regulation, I don't see how they can legally do that.
>>Based on the procedure design, it's not authorized.
>>
>>JPH
>
>
Bill Zaleski
April 12th 04, 03:54 AM
2400' until established.
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 21:35:41 -0500, J Haggerty
> wrote:
>What altitude do they assign? Is it 2400? Or higher?
>
>Bill Zaleski wrote:
>> Normal verbage: 6 miles from Hunter, trun left heading xxx maintain
>> xx until established, cleared..
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:13:19 -0500, J Haggerty
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bill Zaleski wrote:
>>>
>>>>We customarily get vectors to final all the time on the NDB 22 SCH.
>>>>It has no FAF, and is a terminal approach.
>>>
>>>I'm curious, what do they say in the clearance? Do they give a position
>>>in relation to the NDB and an altitude to maintain until intercepting
>>>the final segment?
>>>Based on their own regulation, I don't see how they can legally do that.
>>>Based on the procedure design, it's not authorized.
>>>
>>>JPH
>>
>>
Otis Winslow
April 12th 04, 04:04 PM
The Garmin 300XL is the same way. Whatever fix you're going to cross twice
in a row you need to put it in Hold mode before you go over it the first
time.
I've seen some like this with the NDB on the airport where the psuedo-FAF is
NOT shown on the FAA IAP charts, but is shown on the route page on the
GPS. So you need to scan the route page to find it so you can get it in
Hold mode at the correct time or it messes up the sequencing.
"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> > wrote in message ...>
>
> > On-Aiport VOR and NDB IAPs, by definition, have no FAF, the industry
added
> a
> > Sensor "FAF" to these on-airport IAPs, so that the GPS avionics would
have
> a
> > psuedo-FAF to trigger the approach mode. Jeppesen issued a briefing
> bulletin
> > on all this several years ago, and it is mention, albiet briefly, in the
> AIM.
>
> Thanks... I agree with all that... what is particularly interesting is how
> this sort of approach is handled differently in different GPS databases,
> with the KLN94 for example requiring use of OBS mode to prevent sequencing
> through the procedure turn early and with the Garmin 430/530 including a
> procedure turn before the sensor FAF.
>
>
> --------------------
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com
>
>
Michael
April 13th 04, 10:07 PM
"KP" > wrote
> Didn't say it *couldn't* be done. Said it wasn't likely to be done. So the
> concern over getting vectors to final is probably going to be moot.
Just FYI, my home base (EYQ) in the Houston terminal area has exactly
this kind of approach. It used to have a GPS overlay just like this
approach does, but that went away and a separate GPS approach was
created with a slightly lower MDA.
Vectors to final are provided as a matter of course - I've never shot
the full approach except in training.
Michael
J Haggerty
April 14th 04, 02:36 AM
Sounds like ATC isn't abiding by their own regulations.
Consider also that the procedure designer can not use a PT completion
altitude higher than 2400 based on the full 10 mile PT length
(completion altitude must be within 1500' of MDA). If the procedure had
a 5 mile PT distance (which it doesn't), the maximum completion altitude
would be limited to 1900 (must be within 1000' of MDA), based on the
design constraints of the TERPS manual for the descent gradient on an
NDB no-FAF procedure.
So, as far as I can tell, ATC is not only ignoring their own rules on
vectors to final; they are also exceeding the maximum allowable descent
gradient based on the procedure design.
I'll run it by the New York FPO to get their feelings on it; the one
I'll talk to is a retired controller and a procedures specialist.
JPH
Bill Zaleski wrote:
> 2400' until established.
>
>
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 21:35:41 -0500, J Haggerty
> > wrote:
>
>
>>What altitude do they assign? Is it 2400? Or higher?
>>
>>Bill Zaleski wrote:
>>
>>>Normal verbage: 6 miles from Hunter, trun left heading xxx maintain
>>>xx until established, cleared..
>>>
>>>
>>>On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:13:19 -0500, J Haggerty
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bill Zaleski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>We customarily get vectors to final all the time on the NDB 22 SCH.
>>>>>It has no FAF, and is a terminal approach.
>>>>
>>>>I'm curious, what do they say in the clearance? Do they give a position
>>>>in relation to the NDB and an altitude to maintain until intercepting
>>>>the final segment?
>>>>Based on their own regulation, I don't see how they can legally do that.
>>>>Based on the procedure design, it's not authorized.
>>>>
>>>>JPH
>>>
>>>
>
Richard Kaplan wrote:
> "Brad Z" > wrote in message
> news:HtUdc.5713$rg5.29836@attbi_s52...
>
> > I'll give Richard the benefit of the doubt that the inclusion of the Bryne
> > intersection makes this approach just a bit different from your typical
> > on-airport "No FAF" out-n-back approach. The Bryne intersection only
> serves
>
> That is correct... particularly least from the operational perspective of
> flying the approach on various GPS units. Usually it is very clear when a
> sensor FAF exists but in this case since Bryne is a published intersection
> it is not immediately obvious that the FAF in the GPS database is not a
> published FAF on the approach chart. On the KLN94 it becomes necessary to
> engage OBS mode during the procedure turn to avoid prematurely sequencing
> through Bryne.
>
> The above seems like a small subtlety but it could easily be a source of
> confusion flying the approach for real with a KLN94, whereas it is much more
> clear using the Garmin 530. I will readily state that I have flown
> uncountable numbers of GPS approaches both in my simulator and in airplanes
> using just about all IFR GPS units out there, yet I definitely learned
> something from flying this approach for the first time in the simulator and
> it will change my approach to briefing GPS approaches in the future -- there
> is always something new to learn. I have shown it to other pilots who
> regularly fly GPS approaches as well and they agreed that the use of Bryne
> as the pseudo-FAF creates a bit of a new "twist" to the variations of GPS
> approaches out there.
>
It didn't help that the IAP was charted incorrectly with respect to RASS
minimums, either. The following NOTAM was issued by AVN-100 yesterday:
!FDC 4/3217 UCP FI/T NEW CASTLE MUNI, NEW CASTLE, PA. NDB OR GPS RWY 23,
AMDT 2. CHANGE NOTE TO READ: USE YOUNGSTOWN ALTIMETER SETTING; IF NOT
RECEIVED, USE PITTSBURGH ALTIMETER SETTING AND INCREASE ALL MDA'S 80 FEET.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.